later, a staff reporter from mother jones joins us. his recent article is titled " the mass of new liberal plan to remake american politics." and we will also look at today's news and take your calls, e- mails, and tweets. "washington journal" is next ." host: the house approved $50.5 billion in disaster relief funding for victims of superstorm sandy by a vote of 241-180. now the bill goes to the senate for approval. offto offset part of the bill was defeated by republicans. we will get your take on president obama's decision to

address the gun-control issue, sidestepping congressional approval. 202-585-3882 for all others. you can post your comments on facebook or send us a tweet. or send us an e-mail. president obama later this morning will be outlining the recommendations put forth by vice president joe biden. part of them will be some executive action. this is from our website, c- span.org.

the president may also announced several executive orders which will take effect immediately to curb the violence. so, the assault weapons ban and those sorts of things need congressional approval. president obama will take some sort of executive action and we will talk about that later this morning. 11:45 a.m. eastern time as when we expect the president. look for our coverage. on coverage on the executive orders, do you support that idea by the president to do action on his own? we want to hear from you this morning. here is the arizona republic, courtesy of the newseum in washington.

do you support executive action on gun-control -- on some gun- control measures? i want to know what you think about president obama using the executive order. this is from the washington post blog. the vast majority of actions he can take are relatively minor in nature, it says. it's unlikely obama can significantly alter gun lost through executive order.

what is your take on this? stephan pittman simcom indiana,

republican caller. stephen, from indiana. caller: good morning. the problem is congress can steer funding from the atf or fbi on whatever executive action is taken. i understand bush had an executive order dealing with guns as well, so it is not unprecedented. but 19 is kind of high, so you can see this may help the republican party in the midterm elections. you may also see a 2/3 majority vote in the senate and in the house if there is some kind of aggressive stance towards guns, because democratic constituents live in some of the most dangerous districts in america. host: a two-thirds vote to undo executive action? caller: if the democrats believe it will hurt their midterm

elections, i could see that happening, because i had been getting phone calls from unhappy democrats that live in dangerous districts and they want to be able to protect themselves. host: why are you getting those phone calls? caller: i know democrats. democrats and not been talking about it on television. the house or senate members. it's because they have constituents that support and control, like harry reid's district, so it's a major issue. i believe the background checks at the gun shows, i believe that could pass congress without using executive action. but the fear is there for the people. george bush did it as well, but we have to relinquish the fear. i think, by going through congress and getting it passed

by congress, it will be less drama and try to strip funding from the atf through congress, through the continuing resolution. host: do you think if president obama does executive orders, the that poisoned the well for even the background checks, let alone the assault weapons ban? caller: the background checks, there are federal background checks already, so he may expand that law. host: take a look at what the washington post says president obama is expected to say later this morning. background checks for all firearms buyers, as did the assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips.

some of those or most of those would have to be done through congress. but perhaps he does some other enhance the database and other things by executive order. caller: defining who is crazy and who is not or maybe someone is distressed because they lost their job, it is going to be very difficult to define mental health. how do they get access to those records. is it a federal? that is the thing. people will say, is my doctor or psychiatrist spying on me? there may be less people going to see a therapist or a psychiatrist because they are afraid they will spy on them and report information back to the federal government. host: let's go back to what you said at the beginning when you talk about the politics of this.

this headline -- that was in reference to what harry reid had said. some democrats backing down from an assault weapons ban. dianne feinstein but to introduce her assault weapons ban in the 113th congress. chris in washington, independence. -- independent. caller: i'm against any more legislation on guns. it's nonsense. we are back to demonizing inanimate objects. if we want to get rid of things that are deadly, ban the automobile. this is nonsense. brady.ed this with a g

it did not work. it did not lower crime. that's not the issue. host: what is the issue and where do you see compromise? caller: i don't see compromise. why should this even be an issue? it is a media-driven emergency. other than that, there is none. host: the new york times front page story --

we will go next to dennis in upper marlboro, maryland, democratic caller. caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity, first of all. the gentleman just before me is the perfect example of why we need everything coming out of the white house with these executive orders to get rid of these bushmasters, these automatic rifles, and whatever. the people on the far right that are pushing this madness, they are paranoid, first of all. you can hear it in their voice and in their arguments and in the way they walk. i do believe that everybody in should be able to protect themselves in their homes or whatever. you should have a weapon. but if you are sitting there with an ak-47 assault rifle in

your home, there's something wrong with you. it is perspectives. these people sit back and a lot of them play violent video games and whatever and they get all j juiced up and especially the kids. they cannot see the difference between the video games and the real thing. i am behind the president 150% on this. anyone who witnessed what happened with those children in the school a month ago, anybody that can see that carnage and still want to carry weapons of mass destruction, i call them, they're lunatics. host: all right, we will leave it there. president obama later today announcing what he wants congress to do and what he would support, and executive action.

here's the wall street journal. the nra put out a new ad yesterday. [video clip] >> are the president's children more important than yours?

why is the skeptical of putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards and their school? mr. obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security. protection for their children and gun-free zones for our kids. host: that the latest ad by the nra, put out yesterday, getting a lot of feedback about the ad invoking the president's children. the "washington times" has this headline this morning about president obama's event this morning.

that is our question for all of you. if president obama acts on his own with executive action, do you support that idea? we're getting your take on that this morning. we will go to sandra in sulphur springs, texas, a republican. caller: how are you? i just have a question to ask the rest of the people listening. what about the fort hood shootings? has anybody thought about how many guns were there? the man walked in, he was a psychologist, he walked in and killed our soldiers at fort hood. . what is the gun ban going to do on that? what does obama think about that?

host: what do you think about the president taking some actions on his own? caller: i don't think anybody ought to take our guns away. host: sandra, you think any action by the president would be taking guns away? "politico" reported yesterday about 19 executive actions, one of them could include giving the cdc in authority to conduct a national research on guns, more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws, and pushing for larger schering of existing gun databases among federal and state agencies. do you see that as taking away guns? caller: i just do not think he ought to have the power to do that. that is just not -- but i'm curious what other people think about before the shootings because nobody talks about the soldiers. host: rick is a gun owner in pennsylvania, independent

caller. caller: hi. i think it's pretty crazy. your caller who said the gun owners are the ones that are going play and the shooting games, i think we are the exact opposite. we are responsible parents and responsible gun owners and we're not the ones playing shooting games and having a false sense of confidence. it is not us at all. the ar-15, the assault weapons supposedly used in connecticut was left in his car. how are these people saying that is the weapon that was used when it was left in his car? there is video footage that they found it in his car. he used a handgun. so what is going on with that? host: what about compromise? do you see any? caller: for the second amendment there should not be compromised.

it is absolutely ridiculous that we are even talking about compromise. it is not meant for hunting. it's meant for our personal protection. these people that are saying you have to do everything the government says, why are they so trusting in the government? our founding fathers founded us to do the exact opposite, not to trust the government. not saying we have to be crazy conspiracy theorists', but there's a reason why -- i believe it was thomas jefferson said we don't need our guns until they take them and we don't need the second amendment till they tried to take it -- try to take it. host: now an independent caller in tennessee. caller: the people that think about this understand the second

amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with protecting yourself against a tyrannical government of which this one is far more tyrannical than most governments in the past 30 years. yet people will tell you that the high magazines only are used for hunting. taunting has nothing to do with this. this is protect you from an invasion from people to do us harm. one or two inches at a time to its five people tried to break into your place. you need a high-capacity magazine with 20 or 30 rounds. host: interior secretary ken salazar is set to resign, fox news confirmed. also, this morning, watching what the president might say about other cabinet appointments this week. treasury secretary tim geithner air, as we know, will step down,

as well as the labor secretary. secretary of state hillary clinton. and the defense secretary. so ken salazar will resign and president obama will have to fill that post. back to whether or not you support executive action on gun- control measures. senator rand paul talked about this recently. he said that president obama is acting like a king. [video clip] >> i've been opposed to executive orders even with republican presidents, but one that wants to infringe on the second amendment, we will fight tooth and nail. i promise you there will be no rock left unturned as far as trying to stop them from usurping the constitution, running roughshod over congress. you will see one heck of a debate if he decides to try to do this. host: that was banned all. jerry and san pedro, california. caller: how are you? i am not in favor of's president

executive action against gun ownership. -- i'm not in favor of president obama's action against gun ownership. i support what rand paul said. people should be able to defend ourselves and defend our country against tyranny. i believe the founding fathers made that a key theme when they put that theythere. -- when they put that amendment there. they believe taking away rifles will reduce crime. if we look at countries like england and australia where they have totally banned weapons, the crime rate increased.

host: where did you hear that? let me read this from the new york times this morning. what do you think? caller: i think that is just comparing gun for gun. what about stabbings or beatings or robberies or burglaries? england has the highest crime rates in europe. there are warnings for americans not to give up their gun rights,

from over there. there's an individual who had a self-defense case in england to defend themself against two burglars. he shot and killed one of the individuals and he was convicted of murder for defending his own home on his own land. the individual who burglarized his home with 28 prior convictions, was released in two years and sued the man. the homeowner was not imposing any harm to anyone else and had to go through life in prison while the criminal was released. host: on facebook --

so those are some of the comments on our facebook page. the front page of the daily news this morning, this is the headline -- and inside the newspaper it shows the governor, who could possibly be considering a run for president in 2016, in the legislation. these are new rules to live by, is what they say.

the new york post has this headline -- sky in columbia, missouri, is a gun owner. -- scott. what do you think about president obama taking executive action? caller: i support it.

i've been a gun owner since 1957, a hunter, a sporting rights person i have 19 guns and all. i owend a gun shop 10 years -- i owned a gun shop 10 years. i think that wayne lapierre is a case. i had my gun shop under president clinton and every other day are right-wing person would come in the store and talk about their rights being taken away. no democratic president has ever talked about taking away our guns at any time. they want to get rid of these black guns. i am totally for that. i told my wife when i walk out the door with two 30-round magazines fitted together, and knocked me out and call the

police. host: you owned a store 10 years. describe what it was like to have people come in there? how did you form the opinion you have, given that you owned a gun store? caller: it was a daily thing. i live in a small enough down here than i knew a lot of the people or knew of the people. almost every day i would have these right-wingers coming in and they would start running down president clinton, that he wants to take away all of our guns. host: so it was the conversations. let me ask about background checks. how did that work? caller: i don't know how it works, but i don't have a problem with background checks. when i had my gun store, i would

go to some of these off site and sales that they're talking about, these gun shows. they would be in the parking lot dealing with guns with no registration whatsoever. those types of things are what is causing all this to happen with the gun lobbyists and what not. it is these right-wing nut cases, if they were not out with these ar guns killing people, and the left-wing people would not be doing what they are doing. host: the washington post has a piece written by someone who was in las vegas at a gun show.

next, an article about senator patrick leahy, whose heading the senate judiciary committee. --eefe says

bob in michigan, republican. caller: that last caller, what a piece of work. how did he get the idea all of these killers were right-wing conservatives? there were young kids. most of them are liberal democrats. so i don't understand that at all. as far as the president goes, he swore to uphold the constitution. how can he put his hand on the bible and that's where the oath of office, if the constitution is an impediment to him doing what he wants to do? host: about senator patrick leahy, he will give a speech. this morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. we will bring coverage of that to you here on c-span. he will talk about the judiciary

committee's agenda for the 113th congress. also, he will be our guest this weekend on sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. steve in georgia, a gun owner. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. one of the things i would like to see the president talk about is, under the first amendment, and that is hollywood. , in i grew up in the 1950's used to what the lone ranger and gene autry and all the westerns. i grew up playing with guns. but the problem was the movies back then and the tv shows did not have the violent graphics that you have nowadays. if a bad guy got short, he fell off a horse. you did not see any blood and gore. it was always the good guy

winning. nowadays with the graphics and all the way that they're going about it, they have just blood and gore and brains shooting all over. that along with the video games is adding to the culture of the younger people nowadays. host: on twitter -- i want to show you an ad that was put out by the mayor's against illegal guns, a group set up by new york mayor michael bloomberg. over 800 mayors have signed on. [video clip] >> my son. >> my daughter. >> was murdered with a gun. >> it can happen to your child.

>> a line has been crossed in newtown. >> demands a plan to reduce gun violence. >> they need to hear your voice in washington. >> we've heard enough from the gun lobby's. >> demands a plan. >> demand a plan to reduce gun violence. host: an ad put up by a group set up by michael bloomberg, who was at an event on monday a johns hopkins and he talked about this issue and he said he wanted president obama to sidestep congress. if you're interested in watching an old thing, go to our website, c-span.org. we covered the two days at johns hopkins university about gun- control. we're asking all of you this morning, do you support the president taking executive action on gun-control measures? we want to get your thoughts. we will keep going for about 15 more minutes. some other news as well, here is

the state newspaper this morning, courtesy of the newseum. it says former governor mark sanford is planning a return to politics with a run for congress. that's in south carolina. and this headline in the aiken standard -- then, on the debt ceiling debate, the ways and means chairman has announced there will be hearings on this on january 22. they will be taking a look and that. also in the newspapers this morning, here's the "washington times with this headline --

" he will be our guest coming up, the top democrat on the ways and means committee in the house. later, we will talk to the chairman of the house judiciary committee, representative goodlatte, on the washington journal this morning as well. two members of congress. continuing with the debt ceiling, the financial times this morning reports -- on the nomination of chuck

hagel, a former nebraskahe ka senator.m he won the support of two key members. his opposition so far has come almost entirely from fellow republicans. those are some of the headlines this morning in the papers. back to our question, do you support executive action on gun- control measures? now to an independent caller. caller: hi. i just wonder if there are any human beings left. the underlying issue has very little to do with politics. considering what just recently happened and why everybody is talking about gun-control. gun-control does not mean eradication of the second

amendment. do people expect our president to do nothing about thit? it seems like every time people talk about guns, is such a sensitive issue. there are more sensitive issues, kids growing up in poverty, and being exposed to all these elements, degeneration getting worse and worse. those are the real sensitive issues. when you talk about guns and gun control and prohibiting the purchase of guns to people who should not really have them , that is logical. that is not something so hard to understand. host: mitch in las vegas is a gun owner. good morning.

caller: thank you for accepting my call. host: did you go to the gun show that i was just reading about? caller: this year i have not been, but i have in the past. what it is, it brings to the people in the gun world and in the gun stores new products that are available coming out the next year and it gives people a chance to catch up and see what the difference is. just like going to go to show. different models from one year to another year. i certainly could not support any executive orders by anybody, because i don't really think the problem is with the gun itself. i think it is kind of ironic when you watch hollywood stars get paid $30 million, $40 million, and the more gory the movie is, the more people run

there and the more the movie makes. they will stand around and accept these $40 million checks. there are a lot of people with mental problems that go to the same movies that you and i may go to. to them, they're living in a fantasy world. they actually think they might be john rambo or other people. it is ironic that the same people getting paid $40 million for these movies will stanberry and say we have a gun control problem -- will stand there and say we have a gun control problem. you should've thought about that before you accepted $40 million for the movie. it is despicable when you do that for a living and all you see in the movie is people getting blown up. the more people that gets killed, the more people that go watch the movie. then you say we have a problem with gun control. i really do believe deep down

that no matter what gun-control laws are in effect, you could not stop the shooting in newtown or aurora. these are people that not only did it with nine out of 10 illegal guns, but there's a guy who killed his mother, which is mentally ill right there, stole her gun, and unfortunately heard these children. hearts have to go out to the parents, but i don't think any gun laws couldn't stop to that. any executive order for anything, whether it's gun- control or anything. anybody that thinks they are above the law to supersede congress and the house of representatives, i don't think should be done. host: we are covering a lot of aspects of the gun-control debate on c-span. the president will talk around

11:45 eastern time. look for coverage on c-span. the senate judiciary committee, patrick leahy, whose committee would look at any gun control legislation, will talk at 10:00 a.m. eastern time here on c- span. we are covering the house democratic steering and policy committee, holding a hearing about preventing gun violence. we will be covering that as well here on c-span. "usa today" front page story this morning talks about the president's push on gun-control.

what the president can do by executive action, the paper is reporting this morning, is to simply reinforce some of the laws that are on the books and do some other tweaking of the laws. the big items the president is likely to talk about today, a ban on assault weapons, magazine clips, and background checks, that congress would have to take action on that. there they are on your screen. we're getting your take this morning on the president taking

executive action on his own. what do you think about that? patras in annapolis junction, democratic caller. -- patrick. caller: good morning. i do support the president's executive order, because i believe there should be reasonable limitations on our rights. from most of the callers i got a perverse understanding of the second amendment. we have regulation on things like cars. i don't understand the hostility towards any sort of correction in the loopholes that caused things like what happened in connecticut or colorado. the idea that limitations on they are distributed,

is a sort of takeover or attempt by the government to restrict people so that when the big guy would be a too big, big and overthrow the government. i don't think that is what the president is doing. but the president-elect is saying is this is out of control and unless we take reasonable steps in curbing this kind of violence, that we are going to lose a handle on this. host: what do you think of the optics of this? that by doing something by executive order, that he is poisoning the well for any sort of big action on the assault weapons ban and background checks, that sort of thing? caller: i think that it's an excuse.

if congress is willing to take action and not to be beholden to organizations like the nra, then i think the president would give them that courtesy for them to do their jobs in the first place. by not doing their jobs, he has to take action for his own part. if congress agrees that guns will not be totally eradicated but we will talk about this sensibly and take reasonable steps so kids are not being slaughtered in, which is supposed to be the safest place for the second safest place for them to be during the day, i think president would have allowed congress the courtesy. but he sees that congress is beholden to people in the nra and other organizations that have hijacked this conversation of gun control under the second amendment, which they are misrepresenting in the first

place. host: the wall street journal editorial page picks up on a governor from colorado's latest state of the state address, where he talked about mental health reform and not firearms alone. the wall street journal endorsing the idea, saying -- if you are interested in that, we have been covering the state of the state addresses here on c-span. if you want to know what your governor is saying, go to c- span.org.

rita is a democrat and a gun owner. caller: the misinterpretation of the second amendment is mind- boggling. first of all, it was never intended -- it was created because our first president was against a standing army. so the militias were created. is thathy the phrasing because of a need of a well- organized militia that the rights of gun ownership could not be prevented. it was to protect us from insurrection within our country and outside forces without. it had nothing to do with tierney and throwing over a tyrannical government. it was to protect our government. why anyone would think weapons

of mass destruction should be accessible to the public is. beyond is these assault weapons were designed for military use. the military, and law enforcement, unfortunately, because criminal elements have their hands on these guns, these weapons should be accessible to them only. host: we will return to this topic of the upcoming gun control proposals put out by the president later on today when we talk with the house judiciary committee chairman bob goodlatte later on. next we will switch topics and take a look at the debt ceiling debates coming up as well as tax reform with the top democrat on the house ways and means committee, sander levin. we will take a break and we will be right back. >> ♪ ♪

[video clip] >> the greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker. this honor now beckons america a chance to help lead the world at last out of the valley of turmoil and onto the high ground of peace that man has dreamed of since the dawn of civilization. [video clip] >> we must embark on a new program, the benefits of our thentific event advances, for improvement and growth in underdeveloped areas. >> this weekend, exploring the

history and traditions of presidential inaugurations. live saturday morning at 11:00 eastern, part of three days of american history tv, right through inauguration day, on c- span3. [video clip] >> he had been talking about this dream that he and had. he talked about it for years, the american dream, then it becomes his dream. he had been in detroit just a few months before and he had talked about i have a dream that america will someday realize the principals in the declaration of independence. so i think he was just inspired by that moment. >> on sunday, clayborne carson recalls his journey as a civil rights activist, participating in a march on washington to a prominent historian and editor martin luther king jr.'s papers. it's part of three days of "book tv" this weekend.

on monday. washington journal continues. host: we're back with the house democrat -- with the top democrat on the house ways and means committee, sander levin. you said you're not confident that tax reform will happen in 2013. guest: because so much is happening. the way the republicans are threatening to use the debt ceiling delays everything and it puts the perspective in the wrong place. i think it is a serious mistake for them to even think about that. you were talking earlier about the articles this morning saying how dangerous it is to use the debt ceiling to essentially put the full faith and credit of this country in real jeopardy.

so i very concerned about the consequences of doing that or even threatening to do it immediately and, also, it really shifts the focus, instead of it being on the debt ceiling, it should be elsewhere, including tax reform. host: tax reform does not happen in 2013. guest: it may not happen. host: what is the impact of that, what is the implication? guest: i have said all along it is important for us to look beyond the label tax reform. bring rates down to 25% individual and corporate, they say doing that, without indicating how in the world he would do that. some said, we can use the exemptions and deductions. we have already begun to use them, i hope, in an effective

way. i think we need to go beyond rhetoric of tax reform and talk about what the substance of it would be. again, one of the problems with this effort by the republicans to escape the reality, we cannot use the debt ceiling as a weapon. as i said yesterday, it's not a weapon against the president. it is really against the people of this country, because the consequences of a default would ripple throughout the economy of. this of i just saw an article yesterday that said the people are now drawing on their retirement funds, the middle class of this country. so we now want to have a debt ceiling threat that would cause further erosion in the stock market, that would essentially make things begin to go haywire? i guess the republicans are going to be sinking this weekend how to proceed.

i think they need to proceed with sensibility and common sense instead of an effort to be so extreme that you threaten the economy of the country. host: house republicans leaving for a retreat tomorrow to discuss - guest: they should retreat from the idea of using the debt ceiling. host: the referenced the wall street journal this morning. -- you referenced. many republicans see a debt limit showdown as risky. pat toomey said tuesday he would introduce legislation next reconstructing the white house caprettto prioritize the government's bills. guest: we have had some deficit

reduction. as the president laid out a couple days ago, we have had over $2 trillion. we had 1.5 trillion that came from previous actions. and then we added just a few days ago some further deficit reductions through some increased taxes on the very wealthy of this country. so we have already begun to undertake a deficit-reduction. to use that as a reason to use the debt ceiling as a weapon is really playing with fire. they say pay some bills and not pay others. we have never tried that before. host: is it feasible? guest: i don't think so. which bills? social security? veterans? people out fighting for this country? which bills you pay? we never tried that. i think the president put it so

well. this is not a dead beat nation, really. i think common sense is likely to prevail within the republican ranks. i know firsthand, second-hand, but much of the leadership within the house republican caucus, some of them realize the potential consequences. host: if president obama won on the fiscal cliff deal and that taxes increased, was able to get new revenue, then why not, as democrats, agreed to certain spending cuts that republicans want? guest: the president made clear that there has to be, in terms of what is coming, a mixture, a balance between cuts and revenues. in terms of the sequester, we are going to have to have a bland, a balance. the president has said that and

we have said that. -- a blend. but to say that there will be only spending cuts and no more revenues, that is not feasible. i looked over the discretionary spending charts. now the way we are going, in terms of the percentage of gdp, what we spend on education, what we spend on health research, what we spend on so many necessary programs in this country is going to go down. the trend line is already there. what the republicans are essentially saying is to push it further. have further consequences in terms of health research. does that make sense? do the american people want that? no. we have to have balance. the problem within the republican conference of the house is there is too much

imbalance/ host: do you agree with this editorial -- guest: no one is suggesting relying only on taxation of the very wealthy. that is a sham target. no one is saying that. but let me point out, if we look at what has happened to middle- income families -- and i mentioned that there now dipping into their retirement on a massive basis. in 2010, the top 1% received over 90% of the income growth. that represents basically a very -- i represent basically a very middle-class district. i know the struggle to stay above water, in some cases.

all we're asking for is balance. host: on the spending side, would democrats agree to raising the eligibility age for medicare? guest: there is the presentation. i have suggested, in terms of medicare, and i said this yesterday, and i've talked to the chairman of the committee, we need to sit down and look at medicare on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, with the president included, the white house included. because two things have happened with medicare in the last couple years. the rate of th increase has gone down. it was less than 1% last year in terms of medicare. and so, there is a reduction in health care inflation in medicare. second, we have health care reform. hhs says that one of the reasons there is a reduction in the rate of increase in health care

costs is because of health care reform. health care reform -- and a number of us worked hard to there,ure it it was in mak instrumentality to protect families. we need further reform of the disbursement system. i think raising the age has major problems with that. we should sit down and talk about all options. i think we should look at the entire medicare picture. host: open to some changes on medicare. guest: we had major changes in terms of medicare and in terms

of the provisions for the providers. over $700 billion worth. we have already talked about spending. we have undertaken some major changes in terms of spending. it is all spending or over the cliff. that is such a serious threat to the economy of this country. credit agencies are saying once again the credit of this country is threatened. are we really going to put in jeopardy the full faith and credit of the united states of america? host: the credit agencies have said you also need to address spending.

guest: it is balance verses in balance. host: junior, independent caller. caller: why do you stand there telling us stuff that you know it is not true? when are we going to see a budget from this administration? everything you said is untrue? where is the budget? this has been four years. guest: the administration has presented a budget every year. it is cannot correct to say we have not presented a budget. the house has presented budgets that almost no democrat could

vote for. the senate has a 60-vote requirement has been unable to find common ground within their ranks. they have rejected the house republican budget. it is not correct to say the administration has not provided a budget. host: senate democrats. guest: it takes 60 votes. junior, i want to have a discussion and i think it is important to get to the facts. the administration is working on another budget right now. lawton, ftim from

michigan. guest: where is lawton? they grow grapes. caller: as far as i know. host: tim, go ahead. caller: they can sit back and wait because they have the money to do it. it will come down on the poor people. when he runs out of money, the republicans are not going to want to know him anymore either. host: you are saying this will come down on middle class americans. caller: the middle class starts at like $75,000. guest: i think you're right.

talking about the debt ceiling and putting in jeopardy the full faith and credit of this country is going to hurt everybody, including middle class people and people trying to climb up the ladder. it is reckless. they talk about paying some bills and not others. you tell me which ones. individual homes have trouble doing that and prefer not to. the greatest nation in the world, will pay some bills and not others and bond holders and defense contractors and social security recipients? host: jodie on twitter asks -- guest: sure, there are

administrative costs, social security and medicare. it is better than any -- of course there are. there is always a need to have more efficiency. there is no excuse for tampering with the full faith and credit of this country. host: joe from houston, texas. caller: thank you for taking my call. the president ran on raising taxes on the upper class. he raised taxes on 77% of us. where are the spending cuts? guest: the president laid out in

his press conference there have been $1.5 trillion in terms of spending cuts and caps on appropriation bills. those caps have been adhered to. it is a myth we have not had spending cuts. are we going to hit health care? i feel deeply in terms of research. a quick story. my wife ran a group at nih. when she started, there would have for peer review 100 applications. maybe 50 of them were topflight

and there were reviewed by peer review. out of that they might pick 25 that should be funded. in those days, there was enough money of the top caliber to fund may be 10, 15. wo, or it is one, tow, o three of the original 100. there is not adequate funding for our health. are we going to further cut funding for nih for health research in this country? we need to retrain americans so they can qualify for every kind of job. we have a trainee deficit in this country. we need to do a better job.

are we going to hurt that effort? that is what is at stake. there was an announcement yesterday to cut all nondefense discretionary programs. 100-and-some republicans voted for it willy-nilly across the board. that is not the way we proceed. host: was that the sandy relief bill? that amendment failed. on the tax side of the ledger. deductions and loopholes and what people are talking about. things like that. what are the big ones that would bring the most revenue?

guest: we have talked about the itemized deductions that include mortgage interest and charitable contributions. we took a step in that direction in the tax reform bill. i think we need to look at it further. the president has a proposal. the president had a 20% limit on -- 28% limit on itemized deductions. i think we need to look at it carefully, state and local taxes. that is a major area. the president proposed $700 billion over 10 years from that area.

i don't think we can no even if we adopted the president's 28% limit. host: why not? guest: i think we have to look at the impact on charitable contributions. most of us contribute something. a lot comes from the very wealthy. we need to be careful we do not come too hard on that. host: drink some more coffee. guest: we need to look at that. most viewers don't know what that interest is. when people manage other people's money, the way the system works, part of what they receive, a small part they have

to pay ordinary income tax on. when it comes to managing other people's money, they pay capital gains. that is for managing other people's money. we should change that. it is called carried interests. host: saw hedge fund manager -- -- so a hedge fund manager -- guest: when they sell something and get a major profit, they pay a capital gains tax. we raised it to 20%. there is a huge gap between 20% .nd 39.6%

that is a loophole. essentially people are shipping money overseas and escaping federal income tax and shipping their money to a place with no income tax or a small part. it is not only the u.s. that is a word about this. the same phenomenon exists in the european nations. apple and others in europe are facing pressure. so is the famous coffee co.. host: catherine, thank you for waiting. caller: good morning, mr. levin. guest: how things on the island? the storm hit you. caller: for the budget, ok, i

was watching the debates all the time on c-span. . didn't see any% of that was a rule that nobody voted on. you tell me that one. the waste that goes on of people's money, ok? you have airports and no plane flies. you have a streets in the middle of the desert and no cars go by. why all the money? host: ok. what about waste? guest: we need to be vigilant

and also frank about this. some people have run for office saying, let's settle all problems through getting at waste, fraud, and abuse. we need to do that. no matter how well we perform, we have to tackle issues in a broad sense in addition to waste. i've been around for a few years. i think some agencies do not perform as well. the internal revenue service talking about fraud need to mark researchers to get at fraud in this country, people who do not pay their taxes. it is not a magic wand. host: democratic caller. caller: hello, senator levin.

guest: it is congressman. caller: it is good to see you on television. you are my favorite senator. i tell people are listening to you, especially the president. he seems to be lost. he thinks he can run the country without the help of congress. i do not know what his problem is that he cannot get people from congress to get up and talk with him unless he feels he can use them somehow. guest: i do not think that is accurate. you have a lot of the clips on that subject. the president is consulting people broadly, including people

in congress. he is working with us. he will present some suggestions to us. he knows he has to work with us. he will perhaps use his executive powers where appropriate. on his recent effort to try to resolve things without going over the cliff, there was a lot of back-and-forth between the president and the congress. they may be came close to an agreement. this notion of a president who does not consulted and goes his own way really is not accurate. in terms of the deficit, the ceiling we are now facing and

going through the roof. i think the president is talking with us. he would like to talk to the republicans. republicans are saying in terms of the debt ceiling, let's not worry too much. one colleague said it is fraudulent, there isn't a problem. there is a problem putting the full faith in jeopardy. that is a serious problem. we have never really tried it. for this country and not to pay its bills -- we are talking about bills that we in the congress have voted for. it is paying for the spending that the congress enacted and president signed.

he is saying to the congress, look, it became part of the legislation of this country. you essentially gave bills and now you need to make sure they are paid. host: dave camp is going to hold a hearing about this debt ceiling. who will be testifying? guest: we are working together on who the witnesses will be. host: who the want on the witness table? guest: asked me in a few hours. i spoke to the chairman yesterday. i said let's have some back-and- forth between the democrats and republicans on his powerful committee as to who should testify.

the debt ceiling issue should become a partisan issue. i appeal to the republicans to realize they should not place us in that kind of jeopardy. there will be hearing. we will work on witnesses today. i hope we will be resolving who the witnesses will be. i think there'll be concentration as to who they pick and our choice, one witness out of four. host: might it be secretary geithner? guest: no. host: tony. hi, tony. caller: good morning. guest: where is olive branch?

i have been across the bridge there. caller: the talk about congress and everybody is looking at discretionary spending. we're finding the black rhino but we cannot take care of grandma. otherbuilding mosques foreign countries. people have to worry about being on the street and being homeless. we send money to countries to improve their water systems. thinking about the pipes in china. money out of this

country. he talked about people spending money and avoiding taxes. host: we will get a response. guest: i do not know the last figure. we do have foreign assistance. it is a small part of our budget. we do have a concern for what goes on in other countries. i do not think we're giving money to build mosques. we may be providing money for water projects in other countries. we have a stake in the stability of other countries. take afghanistan. i was talking to my brother, senator levin.

he just came back from afghanistan. we have spent considerable amounts of money there including some programs relating to conditions in afghanistan. we have a stake. al qaeda was essentially stationed there. we had to address the conditions there in a reasonable way with drawing down troops. we have to worry about our conditions at home and about jobs. i come from michigan. why did i fight for the domestic auto industry? i felt fiercely about this.

we said the domestic auto industry is a key to the continued prosperity of this country. we need to focus like a laser beam on jobs in the united states of america. we have been coming back under this administration. i was listening to npr. the president's came into his presidency, lost 700,000 jobs the first month, 700,000 in a month. it is getting better bill we have a ways to go. host: roger from michigan. caller: who put us into this debt? you did by caring not the way

you guys do. i did not understand how you can pass a bill knowing we do not have the money to pay for it. i am a true independence. i am working 19 hours a week making $8 an hour. money is sent all over the country but you are not taking care of the problems at home. keep running the debt up. guest: i represented warren. i identified with the thrust of your question. you went from a job that place to in the middle class. so many people in warren, the

third largest city in the state. the auto industry is so important. it has epitomized the growth of the middle class in this country. we need to pay attention to that. it is not true that one party is responsible for the rising debt in this country. the republicans passed bill after bill and never paid for it. we had flirtation with cutting taxes for the very wealthy as well as the middle class. the argument was that that would work, the bush tax cuts, and they would pay for themselves. that did not happen. the republicans never paid for any of this. the debt under president bush

grew $3 trillion. i think that is something that is all of our business. host: george in tennessee. caller: hello. how are we doing? guest: i think ok. caller: i am 79 years old. i was a truck driver for 45 years and i worked in construction before that. i have never in my life had to draw unemployment. you can always get a job in the trucking business. i have raised my kids. all three of them are gone now.

they pay into social security all the time. they never got a dime. the oldest would be 64 if he was still alive. host: i need a question or comment because we're running at time.out of caller: everybody talks about taxes. it is always the lower-end people. to make $250,000, you have to make $5,000 a week. i don't think i made $55,000 a year.

guest: my best to you, sir. you have worked hard and your family has. income inequality in this country is growing. the middle class in this country has had on average a stagnant wage. the very wealthy have done very well. over 90% of the growth went to the top 1%. we have to make a decision. is it everybody on their own? or everybody must pull their weight. host: stella on twitter. guest: i think maybe once.

i have voted many times and i never have voted to use it as a weapon. "we cannot -- we don't have to pay our bills and we can shatter the full faith and credit of the united states." host: up next we'll talk with bob goodlatte. can an assault weapons ban make it through congress? guest: i think it is 50/50. the people that buy guns at gun shows, i think there needs to be checks. we cannot use any factor as a reason not to do things more comprehensively. let me give you my own feeling.

i think we need to address violence in this country. if any family lost as they did they wouldicut', become energized and determined. we have to act as if each of us lost a child from someone who just used weapons. the reason for the use is probably complicated. part of it was probably his mental condition and is easy access to these weapons, easy access to weapons that are not necessary for hunting or recreational purposes. we need to do better in this country. host: we are out of time. guest: it is a pleasure. when i think of the history of

c-span, you are indispensable. host: thank you. up next, bob goodlatte. later, a piece in "mother jones " about a secret meeting. but first a news update. >> more on the issue of guns. nearly six in 10 americans want stricter gun laws in the aftermath of the shooting in connecticut. and majority favor a ban on military-style weapons. a lopsided 84% of adults would like to see a federal standard for background checks for people buying guns at gun shows. the nra says they have seen

membership grow by 250,000 in the months since the shooting at sandy hook elementary school. that number always fluctuating as memberships expire and new members join. president obama presents his plan to limit guns and ammunition. the white house has released letters from children pleading for gun control. it appears to be an effort to help shape the narrative of the day of the president's announcement. jay carney announced yesterday president obama will be surrounded by small children when he announces his proposal at 11:45 this morning. you can watch it on c-span television. we'll have our phone lines

opening following that announcement. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> the greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker. this honor now beckons america the chance to help lead the world at last out of the valley of turmoil and onto that high ground of peace that man has dreamed of since the dawn of civilization. >> we must embark on a bold, new program, while making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas. >> this weekend, exploring the history and traditions of presidential inaugurations. live saturday morning at 11:00 eastern, part of three days of american history tv, right through inauguration day, on c- span3.

"washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back to the table bob goodlatte. guest: good to be with you. host: the president will put forth what he would like to see happen on gun control. guest: we are interested in what the commission and the president proposed and we'll take a serious look at anything they put on the table. there is a second amendment to keep and bear arms and that right was only recently found by the supreme court to extend to individual civilians and their right to own firearms. we are going to look at this.

this is a terrible tragedy. the virginia tech shooting was close to my district. we took a close look at what happened when individuals with serious mental health issues get firearms and cause these kinds of catastrophes. there was not enough information in the system and therefore we beefed thatup. we have more than double what the president proposed to do that. nearly half the states do not send information of those that are mentally in ccapable of taking care of themselves in that system.

this individual was known to have problems but was never committed. he got the guns from his mother, who collected and used guns and did not keep those guns separate from her son and paid for it with your live. we want to take a close look at what happened to avoid this kind of situation happening again. host: this is a story from "roll call." this is what they write.

host: do you agree with how they characterize that? guest: if he talked about reinstating the assault weapons ban or some other effort, we did not find those things would lead to prevent these types of activities from occurring. in terms of background checks and keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and people with serious mental difficulties, we want to do that and we'll take a closer look. we have agreed to look at any arguments that are made with regard to any of the issues. i have a strong record of having defended the second amendment for a long time and a strong respect for the right of private citizens lawfully abiding

private citizens to own firearms. there is evidence they are used to help defend -- about half a million a year use of firearms to frighten off intruders from their homes. that is a lot of instances. another study found about 1 million people a year use of firearms to defend themselves from various types of crimes, not just in their homes. the right to own firearms is a well established principle and we're going to defend it. host: 5 house members that got the most nra money. your picture is there.

guest: gun owners know of my long track record of supporting second amendment rights. they have a tendency to support my efforts to run for office. host: i was wondering about high-capacity magazine rounds. it might have slowed him down in the newtown tragedy where he might not have been able to kill as many children. guest: past shut these have shown the magazine size does that make a difference. we'll be happy to look at additional evidence. we are still not provided with all of the information regarding to how this occurred. there are reports there were handguns that were used.

we would like to have more information. there are tens of millions of these high-capacity clips and assault weapons. it is important to talk about semi automatic weapons. people think assault weapons is what they see in movies and video games. machine guns are heavily regulated. civilians have to go through a severe licensing requirement to do that. semiautomatic, the bullet is automatically chambered. most handguns are semi-automatic. to attempt to say you'll bend them based on how they look --

if you have a folding stock or a flash suppressor that did not affect the lethality of the weapon, that does not draw any distinction. i did not think that is a meaningful well to address the problem. host: executive action on gun control measures by the president. is that appropriate? guest: it will depend on what the executive action is. if the government which has many laws on the books that deal with background checks and prohibiting access to machine guns is used within the scope of

that law to change how the government addresses the problem, that's one thing. if the president plans to expand the authority to act without congressional approval, that exceeds his authority under the second amendment and the constitution and we would be mindful of that and would be taking action. host: you could stop funding -- guest: we certainly would. we do not want to be in a situation where portions that are legal and appropriate are halted because the president accedes his authority. if he exceeds his authority, i think the congress will respond. host: let's get our viewers

involved. jan in california. caller: i agree with the gentleman that it is and mentally ill. there was someone as burgers illness -- asperberger's illness in norway. his father was the vice president of g.e. he was catatonic when he went to school. why don't we start to think about the fact that other countries allow their people to have weapons? they think that countries like china and russia that would like to invade us and not have us so powerful in asia, they might

toe in here -- they're going come in here with assault weapons. we have two coasts. american people are paranoid because they have the chance to be invaded from two coasts. why the president can have 20 guards around his children while they are in school? why can we put guards in schools so that we protect the children and not try to take weapons away from good people? guest: the caller makes a good point. i would argue mostly local governments and state governments and school boards and school administrators should be reviewing the safety of every school in the country.

there are hundreds of thousands of school buildings in the united states. the federal government cannot afford to pay for the security when we have debts that are over $12 trillion a year. are the measures they are taking the best they can do? these incidents is in school are very rare. that doesn't mean when they do happen they are not serious tragedies. everybody should take a look at that. we have a constitutional right to own firearms in this country. people own firearms for a wide variety of reasons. host: that caller brought up the

new nra ad saying the president's children has a guards when they go to school. was that appropriate? guest: i did not want to, what anybody does to protect their family members. in this country, one reason people do own firearms is to provide protection for themselves and their families and we should respect that. host: the president will recruit children today at his news conference. they will be standing behind him when he talks about his proposals. we have a tweet from a viewer. guest: a car is something that you drive on the public roads.

that is different from a gun which you may keep privately in your home. cars are not given special protection in the constitution is another difference. we do have a licensing system with very heavy background checks. for conventional firearms, it is a freedom that we protect and that we will continue to do that. you would have to have a national registration system and that is very controversial and as something that congress is likely to undertake. host: because of a civil liberties? guest: right.

host: good morning, bob. caller: the nra is one thing. i was a member years ago. they were wanting money and i was using the money to give to republicans to let them with. since i'm an independent, i didn't like that. they do not care if you become a member. they did not check for that. it is namely republicans that benefit from the nra when it comes to money. maybe it should be everybody has insurance or something like that to have a weapon and let them do the background check.

they wouldn't be able to own a gun. guest: the nra represents more than 4 million people. people in theolion united states own firearms. it is important that organizations that want to protect our civil liberties represent the people they represented. this is a much broader issue. the suggestion would entail a licensing system. there are criminal penalties for possessing a firearm when you are a drug user or under mental disabilities, even domestic violence cases.

there is a up to 10 year prison sentence if you violate that. anytime somebody miss use a firearm, they face civil liabilities to somebody who may be the victim of that. there are lots of laws that address the liability. host: we are talking with congressman bob goodlatte. this is -- what the president would like to see be done on gun control. joe in ohio -- let's go to howie in philadelphia.

good morning. our second amendment has been destroyed by these gun laws and laws.nd 1930 the government is part of the problem. guest: when we examine firearms laws, we should examine them to see if they are effective. we are going to continue to protect the rights of law- abiding citizens to own firearms and to make sure that any new laws do not impinge on those rights and do not -- and do have some effect in terms of

trying to prevent these tragedies. host: tim in boston. caller: you call me off guard. host: you lost your train of thought. i will come back to you. patrick leahy is quoted with a headline saying he could slow down obama's efforts on gun control. have you talked about any compromise legislation? guest: we have had good conversations in the lead up to the congress. with that discussions about different things we might work together on but not about gun control. host: immigration reform? guest: will not talk about

immigration reform in the broader sense -- we have not talked about immigration reform in the broader sense. -- 55,000trying to green cards given away each year not based on job skills but based on pure luck. that was tied to a program to people that attended u.s. universities to stay in the u.s. and to use those skills to create jobs in the united states. that is one piece of the overall immigration issue. there's been somehous ideas out there.

the you endorse those ideas? -- do you endorse those ideas? guest: we welcome those ideas. we want to take a look at this. we are a nation of immigrants. there is not a person that cannot go back a few generations to find somebody that came to the united states to better their lives. my grandfather came from germany. this is a very common thing. we are also a nation of laws. looking at a lot of different pieces of this including enforcement and what you do with the millions of people that are not lawfully in the united states today. we are willing to look at all

those things. we are prepared to see how much common ground there is. if you cannot do something on a broader scope, we will look at individual pieces of legislation. i would not be likely to agree to it pathway to citizenship for 11 million people who are illegally in the united states. i would look at proposals dealing with the fact that they are here and knowing who they are and give them some kind of legal status. this is worth talking about. host: tim in boston. caller: thank you for bearing with me. guest: you had time to catch your thoughts.

caller: i want to praise the representative for protecting the second amendment. it is we're watching you guys with the sound dowon -- it is weird watching you guys with the sound down. guest: we can hear you. caller: thank you for protecting our civil rights. the way you republicans are declaring war on the middle class and unions, we will need those second amendment rights. people are going to get mad. thank you for protecting our rights. guest: i didn't care for the characterization about what the meaning of the second amendment rights are.

we are very much in favor of the middle class and keeping taxes low and incentivizing the private sector to create jobs and getting a handle on spending in washington, which is the greatest danger to the future of our children and the middle class in danger. more than $16 trillion in debts. that is the greatest threat to the middle class. we are committed to address the problem. that is one reason i voted against the fiscal cliff deal. raising taxes is not the way to grow our economy. they were spending increases. host: this from twitter.

the va% of those polled are not satisfied with a gun laws -- we need to reinstitute the assault weapons ban and fix it. guest: we are willing to listen to proposals. the original assault weapons ban was not a meaningful law. it did not distinguish between the assault weapon and other types of weapons that fire bullets the same way. i think that's the problem with the -- a lot of people think it involves machine guns. host: new york state just passed legislation yesterday. i think this is what you're

talking about. "this is not ok." you can purchase the same rifle without a pistol grip. they fire at the same bullets. guest: first of all, that refers to automatic weapons. in military-style automatic weapon cannot be purchased by a civilian in the united states today. if you want to collect them and found an older model, you have to go through extensive licensing and background checks to be able to do that. the real issue, and i don't know if that is a misprint by the reporter -- i have not looked at the new york law -- this was done by the congress and i voted against it in 1994 and to repeal

it in the meantime. that was an effort to ban semi- automatic weapons. the way they and distinguished those semi-automatic weapons, called assault weapons, from other automatic weapons like handguns and rifles and things people used in their home is by the looks of the weapon. the fall in stock, the bayonet mount, the suppressor. it is a meaningless law, and statistics show that during that time the band was in effect, it had no impact upon protecting the united states citizens. again, i go back to the second amendment right that citizens have. the court only recently held for the first time -- many people, and i, have believed for 200 years that they had the right to own weapons -- the court confirmed that in a recent

decision. it did not say that the government could not step in and regulate, but when you step in an attempt to regulate what is effectively the way most modern weapons function, you are effectively taking away the right to own a firearm. there was no challenge that the court heard on whether it was constitutional, but i would suggest that that kind of regulation is either meaningless or unconstitutional or both. host: stephen in illinois and. caller: hey, how are you all doing today? i have two problems, really. one that starts with the video games. where is the parents at? the video games are going to be the video games. i don't see how we could try to regulate something like that. to me that is wrong -- host: let's get a response on that. guest: good point. we ought to be talking about family members -- parents,

certainly, but even when you have an adult son, like mr. lanza, they can do the most good to prevent this tragedy. if she did not have weapons and the hong kong in might have been a different outcome. videogames -- parents need to use discretion, because there is lots of violence in them, and television programs and movies. lots of it is just plain misleading. you see cops and robbers shows where they are spring bullets, and those are weapons that are illegal. the question is does this into rich people to engage in the -- does thisspan.or encourage people to engage in the activities? we also have the first amendment right to free speech. it is difficult for congress to regulate what can be contained,

a motion picture or video game, on the subject of violence. all people can exercise discretion and not frequenting these types of experiences that may be conducive to violence. there are studies that would support that they are conducive to violence, but it is difficult for congress to regulate and i would approach that with extreme caution because of the first amendment right of people to freely express themselves. host: twitter -- guest: it is a subject that should be looked at. the house energy and commerce committee is going to be taking a look at the mental health aspects of this, as well as other committees like the judiciary committee. certainly i would like to know more about what' drugs do to prevent iraq behavior, but if this individual believed --

prevent iraqi behavior, but if this individual believes they can cause these problems, we should be looking at that as well. host: tennessee. caller: i believe that any order aaimed at guns is always ended a law-abiding citizens. ithis administration flooded the market with guns for criminals and it seems like he wants to control this country. one other comment i could make -- i heard that he will be surrounded by children when he makes his announcement. i remember that during the gulf war, saddam hussein surrounded himself with children, too, and that was a chilling video. those children were scared to death. thank you very much. guest: the caller makes a good point with regard to focusing on

criminals. unfortunately, the bureau of alcohol, firearms is involved in an explosive issue. we are continuing to examine in this. the attorney general of the united states was held in contempt by the congress for failing to release information regarding what happened inside the justice department with regard to the fast and furious issue, which resulted in the deaths of many people in mexico and at least one person in the united states, a border guard. we should focus not on using guns in the manner the government did, but on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and enforcing those laws, with regard to people who are not law-abiding citizens. we certainly will continue to focus on that issue. but also on the broader issue of what the government is doing, and are we doing enough to prevent criminals from getting access to weapons?

host guest: i don't know the answer to that question. it may have to do with the secret service. all of those candidates for president of the nine states have secret service protection. once you are inside, they want to provide protection to these folks. when you go to prison cheryl rolley, you probably are not allowed to carry a weapon -- when you go to a presidential rally, you probably are not allowed to carry a weapon into those. i am a strong supporter in general of concealed carry permits, and i have supported facilitating the ability of people who travel, and 49 out of 50 states have a concealed carry law to facilitate the ease in which you can travel from one state to another and have your concealed weapon as long as you have a valid permit.

host: congressman bob goodlatte, it judiciary chairman, thank you for your time. guest: good to be with you. host: coming up, our "spotlight on magazines" series with andy kroll of "mother jones" magazine. first, an update from c-span radio. >> lower gas cost of said more expensive food and higher rents to keep a measure of prices flat last month. rents and airline fares also rose. gasoline prices fell a seasonally adjusted 2.3%. the overall flat reading ends a year in which inflation slowed. the consumer price index 1% in 2012.

on wall street, shares are lower, with boeing and set to weigh on the market. its slump on concerns over the safety of its new streamliner passenger jet. this after one of the aircraft made an emergency landing in japan, leaving two japanese airlines to ground there reminder fleets. the senate is expected to send 8 superstorm sandy aid measure to president obama for his signature next week. this after the house passed the vote of $50.5 billion for the bill. sandy has been blamed for 140 deaths and billions of dollars in residential and business property damage. when the senate returns next week, you can watch live gavel- to-gavel coverage on c-span2, the house on c-span. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> he had been talking about his dream that he had had, talking about it for years, the american

dream. and then it becomes his dream. he had been in detroit just a few months before, talked about "i have a dream, that america will someday realize these principles of the declaration of independence." i think he was just inspired by that moment. >> sunday on "after words," claiborne carson and remembers his years as the civil-rights activist. it is part of three days of booktv this weekend, monday featuring books on the inauguration, president obama, and martin luther king jr. "washington journal" continues. host: on wednesdays, we take a look at a recent magazine articles today we focus on a "mother jones" piece written by

andy kroll, who was with us. "revealed -- the massive new liberal plan to remake american politics." what is this massive new plan? how did it come about? guest: the leaders of green peas, this year club, the communication workers of america union, and the naacp, or basically getting together as leaders of liberal organizations do -- and joked that they have a knitting club, not exactly true -- but they talked about the problems they are seeing in washington and politics preventing them from essentially doing what their organizations were created to do, whether that --environmental production protection, economic prosperity for afghan-americans, and realize that we could do a lot if we got our friends and allies together to harness the manpower we have come with the expertise in various fields that we have,

and the money, frankly, from the members or fundraising or whenever. last summer, last june, they got a small group of liberal organizations together to talk about ways to collaborate and find common ground, issues to rally around. my piece, the jumping one for that was the meeting in december in washington that the national education association, a big building by the white house, talked about raising money and getting manpower and making an action plan around three issues. the first one is getting big money out of politics, the super pacs, the secretive nonprofit groups. the second one was a voting rights, voting id laws. the third was reforming how the filibuster is used in the senate. the filibuster is essentially an impediment to the policies they want, and they believes they cannot get anything major

done, at a progressive agenda, with the filibuster being used as much as it is in the senate. host: you call it a secret meeting. why is its secret? guest: no press were allowed paid off the record, and by- only -- no press were allowed. off the record, invite-only. it was supposed to be not publicized and all. i don't know if they were totally happy about me publicizing it. they spoke to me, which was nice. was theirost: representation from the obama administration or the house or senate? . guest: there were no democratic party or democratic national officials there there were two senators who came to speak about

filibuster reform -- senator tom udall and senator jeff merkley. it was further to the left on the progressive side -- the advocacy organizations and interest groups on the left. environmentalists, voting rights advocates, immigration reformers, folks who are watchdogs of the right, people for the american way, for instance, and a panoply of liberal groups here. host: you say they can to address the problems they see at the american politics. other problems they seat with conservatives, the president, democrats, or both? guest: the problems come as they see it, definitely have to do with conservatives. they all have their specific agendas and have been slowed off for a time as they work on these

issues. i will work on my stuff, you work on yours. what they have come to realize is that these luster reform, money in politics -- is issues, filibuster reform, money in politics, are impediments to what they need to get done. they cannot get environmental legislation passed for a jobs bill passed with the filibuster in place. they are coming together and saying that this may not be what my constituents want, my members or my board of directors, but it is underlying everything that we do. the obama administration, essentially their approach to money in politics -- is not like this collision is lost upon them -- it is not like this coalition is lost on them. the administration in the reformers' eyes is not right on

that issue at least. host: they are complaining about big money in politics, and yet they respond bay putting in money. guest: that is right, and that is one of the inherent tensions of this effort. their point is that we cannot get anything done simply by sitting around and talking about it, just like good ideas and good will -- just by good ideas and good will and press releases. host: we have seen some commercials already advocating for reform of how the senate work strip of much money and resources art they putting into that effort alone? guest: the communication workers of america union announced $3,000 hummer in the senate's, senate rebuffed -- $300,000 hammering the senate, senate republicans, on filibuster

reform, and even the kind that harry reid, majority leader, is proposing. this one ad buy is $300 in a week. host: this is the front page of "usa today" this morning, with president obama "presses brought a gun at plan." "organizing for america would be used to sell the plan to americans." who is this group? guest: organizing for america is definitely an obama creation. this is the grass-roots network -- the e-mail list, but the fundraising machine, that obama has built up since 2007, 2008. organizing for america at tap

into the same networks that this organization that i read about, but ofa, as some call it, is the incredible number that the obama administration/campaign has built up -- the incredible network that the obama administration/campaign has built up. host: those liberal groups that met together that you write about, do they have a new name? guest: the democracy initiative trade is not get more anodyne or generic and that -- the democracy initiative. it really does not get more anodyne or generic than that. they believe that small-d democracy is working, that filibuster and super pacs and $10 million donations is not how democracy should be working or how the founders envisioned it. these items at the core of their agenda is the way to get democracy working again. host: "revealed: the massive and

too liberal plan to -- massive the new liberal plan to remake american politics close what is the headline. last week we talked with a reporter for "national review" magazine about what is ahead for republican politics. this week, and he called on democrats and their agenda. -- and he called on democrats and their agenda. veronica, you are up first. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to say that i am proud democrat and the reason i am is i feel that what the democratic party does is they try to listen to the people. it seems like the republicans do not care what the american people want, no matter how much we want certain controls and health care and that is all for the good of the people.

they are totally, totally against it, and they throw out the second amendment on gun control, which back when that was done, our founding fathers had no idea of the weapons we are talking about today paid it is outrageous. host: all right. andy kroll, what did you make of what you heard there from the democratic caller? guest: there will be an effort among members of this group to test republicans here as detached from the people -- cast republicans here as detached from the people they represented minority leader mitch mcconnell -- usually the few lawmakers singled out by name, according to the nets of this meeting they gave me, someone that this big collision could and should target in 2013 and especially 2014, when he is up for reelection.

they believe that mitch mcconnell here in washington has grown detached from what the people of kentucky, his home state, want to he supports the regulating how money comes into our politics, getting rid of contribution limits, and letting people give big amounts of money directly to candidates. that is not all that well in kentucky -- that does not poll that well in kentucky. you will see an effort to drive a wedge between mitch mcconnell and his constituents, especially on the issue of money in politics. that is a snapshot of what this coalition could be doing. host: garry, illinois, republican caller. caller: yes, good morning. i don't know why they need to spend as much money to make a mountain out of a molehill, if they are able to put cards in our schools like they to add that banks and transitions and

places like that -- if they can put them guards in our schools, qualified principles, put them through a police officer training, let them become part of the police officers, we would not have had no more shootings after columbine, because they would have stopped that boy before he got in the school. and nobody got killed. i believe that with all my heart. host: andy kroll, gun control -- will this group of the democracy initiative be looking at that issue? guest: some are already mobilizing and educating members, because this is a hot- button issue right now. interesting thing, the way the nra, the big gun lobby, could come into play is that the nra has been one of the most vocal voices on letting more money

come into elections and opposing laws -- for instance, at the 2002 mccain-feingold act -- the nra had a staffer of there's a waiting on the steps of the courthouse the moment george w. bush signed a law to file a legal challenge against it. that went to the supreme court. the nra has been active to bring this to the court. role ind see the nra's that come to light a little bit more, especially with the nra in the spotlight with gun-control the ads they are running against the president. host: danny, you are on with "mother jones" magazine.

caller: i've been watching satellite tv, and watched current tv, and i had been exposed to information about how we got here, going back to the 1970's with the koch brothers, the heritage foundation. and going beyond that, it seems along the way the democrats have also had blood on their hands in being involved with this, such nafta. clinton signing afte we could go on and on, but we don't have time for that. do you think that democrats will ever see that they to have blood on their hands with conspiring with lobbyists? i hope that will happen, but i really don't think so. where we are now is at a concerted effort to get us to this point by wealthy old men. in the end, we have to ask ourselves the question -- should

anybody ever have enough wealth to buy the government? should these people have to take responsibility for the losses, personal losses the american people have encountered because of their efforts to do this? host: andy kroll? guest: interesting point the caller made, and thanks for the call, about conservative efforts dating back to the 1970's -- you can draw a three line from that point where we are today. the 2010 elections, we had died in the will conservatives like scott walker of wisconsin elected to office, john t. said in ohio, rick scott in florida, and elsewhere, pursuing a conservative agenda. 2010 was an eye to eye-opening moment for members of this coalition. oh, we have heard about the kochs or any number of the

wealthy conservatives who have been patrons of the moment for a long time -- of the movement for a long time did this sort of smack them in the face, what happens at the state level and the national level with the tea party folks elected to congress, and they realize that we have to have a concerted, coordinated effort, someone like that on our side. this has been generations in the building for them, and now they are taking our butts, and we are on the defensive, trying to defend human rights and health care and things like that. it came to a head in the last few years, and i think that this coalition is a way to start to push back in a concerted way against that. host: missouri, democratic caller. caller: first, i would like to say something to the commentators who is commentat

ing today. it started under the bush administration, and eric holder came in and did find out about it and he shot the program down. i'm for the democratic party organizers. i'm ready and willing and ready to go, because we do need to organize, we need to organize to get the truth out and stop the falls lies the republicans put out. i am proud to be a democrat, and whenever obama asks me to do, i .m ready to gedo it guest: she sounds like she is ready to go around this gun control reform we are going to see. interestingly as well, those are the kinds of folks, the coalition i write about -- they want their members to be as

fired up as margaret was, because they realized -- a harvard study that came out this week made the point very well, that the big kinds of reforms these folks want on these issues are not want to come from, they believe, the grand bargain at washington -- grand bargains in washington, and the closed-door negotiations, getting key players around the table, how do we make this happen. they realize that big changes on money and politics, voting rights, are going to come from the outside, are going to come from their members, whether they are sierra club members, naacp chapters around the country, they are going to drive this change. host: at the state level? guest: state level and the national level. when i talked to has talked about mobilizing in sierra club

chapters around these issues. the pressure will have to come from folks like margaret and energized members, because they realize that while they can meet and plan strategy and create goals, really, the energy and action is going to come from the outside. host: i'm wondering, though, is there a danger, any talk of concern that they could go too far? guest: that is in their heads at all times. the organizations in this group are from all stripes and shades of the progressive movement. there definitely are more liberal elements there, as well as folks who are left of center court center, relatively speaking, of course. there are no blue dog democrats there -- host: [laughs]

guest: they what reform on these issues, but it cannot be a liberal wish list either. they believe that is good and true for the country, but they go into this with eyes wide open. these are some of the most savvy political operatives in washington. host: andy kroll talking about a meeting of liberal groups who are now calling themselves the democracy initiative. the headline out of "mother jones" magazine. mary in louisville, kentucky, republican caller. caller: good morning. i know that you spoke about the fact that one of the parts of their agenda is big money in politics. i wonder what part of the discussion will entail the big

union money in politics, especially in light of the fact that union dues are forced dues, and members do not have a say in where their union dues go as far as lobbying goes. it is rather ironic that big money in politics only refers to republican money. quite frankly, i am really getting tired of that old, old argument. guest: it is a good point. obviously, unions, some of the biggest unions in the country, are a member of this collision. seiu, the service employees union, as is the afl-cio. they believe that union money is not on par with sheldon adelson, who reportedly gave $150 million to republican causes in the 2012

election. unions disclose the vast bulk of their spending and lobbying to the labor department. host: what about george soros? guest: george soros' is not part of that paid his money is not disclosed the way the labor unions' are. so there is a disparity in that. the unions are a huge political force, and they are absolutely part of this equation. now, whether this group talks about labor union money it remains to be seen, because labor unions are a founding element of this. but i don't think any discussion about money in politics is complete without talking about labor. labor is really a huge funding source for the democratic party. host: explain what you meant by "massive new liberal plan."

what is massive about it? guest: the largest groups on the progressive side, and it is expected to grow as big as 50 by the end of the winter. we have never seen a coalition as big as tackle three fundamental issues. you have seen organizations like health care for america now, a lot of different groups coming together, but it was around a specific legislative item, president obama's health-care bill, and this was in 2009. but never have we seen this kind of concerted effort. and as michael brune from the sierra club told me, he told them that this is a 10-year plan. this is not a one-year, two-year plan, not built around and

election. this is something we want to be here to stay. big picture, hugely contentious issues -- we have not seen this before it is unpresidented -- unprecedented. what caught a lot of people off guard is why does the naacp want to talk about money in politics? they are not a campaign finance reform group. on and on issues as key to their own agendas -- banks see these -- they see these issues as key to their own agendas. host: mary in louisville,

kentucky, you are on the air. caller: you already took my call. host: all, sorry about that. jack. caller: and listening to your new names -- "progressive." do you call yourself a socialist? guest: me personally? absolutely not. caller: so your organization is a liberal, but you are not for a socialist-type legislation for "the people." i want to ask you a question, with this line of future growth and power that you want. who do you think is going to pay for it? youron't you call organization a socialist organization? guest: i think you might be

conflating the organizations that i am writing about -- the democracy initiative, this coalition of progressive groups -- with my on publication, "mother jones," i don't know anyone would call it socialist. the funding for this project, the campaign itself, comes from them. the policies they are supporting -- they i not calling for health care reform or a massive expansion of government, necessarily. they want tighter regulations of money in politics, date and what more opportunities for folks to get on the voting -- they want more opportunities for forced to get on the voting rolls, and they want to reform the use of the filibuster in the senate. is a planow if there for a massive expansion of government in there, even though

it these organizations have supported policies in the past that would call for more government spending. guest: the state and national debate is a very good one. filibuster reform is a fight in the senate and that can play out in the beginning of a new congressional term. but the state and federal question is a great one, because at the same time the obama folks have been so successful at the federal level, with campaigning and raising money and so forth, we have seen the republicans really enact large chunks of their agenda at the state level, and state democrats have not had nearly as much success as national democrats had paid whether this is from laws governing unions, a voter id

laws, blocking healthcare and limitation, the conservative agenda has been implemented at the state law, and democrats are on their heels grappling with this. host: next caller. what is your question or comment? caller: freedom -- prayer in schools, this kind of thing. seems like they were read more about bonds than freedom of speech -- worry more about guns than freedom of speech -- [indiscernible] host: we kind of lost you there, caller. brian in illinois, republican. caller: you talk about unions but i don't think any unions should be involved in government. it should be completely private sector.

another comment, on guns -- i live near chicago, and 90% of the gun crimes are by black men killing people for the clothes the they where, because they had the ad on sideways -- host: how do you know that figure? caller: how do i know that figure? you can look at the arrest records. it is that simple. i guarantee, not one of those guns are registered. not one. i don't understand how they are going to do this and infringe on people's rights to carry a gun. host: i will leave it at that point, because we are talking more broadly this morning with andy kroll about his peace in "mother jones" magazine about liberal groups coming together to try to remake american politics with an agenda that involves big money out of

politics, voter id laws, and reforming the filibuster in the senate. kansas city, missouri, independent caller. caller: i have been watching c- span for a while, and i appreciate getting in and setting off on this topic. we are a nation of laws, and the media cannot be complicit, not relating to the people, but we are also a nation of words, and we should not be cavalier with the words we use. we use words like "conservative" it is amazing-- to me how many people call in and are so uninformed, and divide themselves among party lines and don't seem to understand basic concepts of

what the republicans, what a -- what a republic is, what a democracy is did the media does a great disservice to the people in its reporting because they don't explain things are correct people, and -- host: caller, are you referring to this headline specifically, "revealed: the massive new liberal plan to remake american politics"? caller: absolutely. the constitution is the law of the land, and anything that is not enumerated to the federal government goes back to the states. i heard our representative get on there and say something totally contrary to the constitution -- federal law outrance state law. he did not explain wheat he meat

by that, but if mr. kroll could explain to people the basis of the comment, and not giving people an understanding -- host: understand your point. andy kroll. guest: appreciate your call. headlines can have an effect of summarizing and shrinking down into a few words what in this case is an incredibly diverse and wide-ranging coalition of organizations. i think they would identify largely as liberal. "progress of the" is the word they would like to use. but they definitely identified as left of center. we have got to be clear, i have got to be clear every day on what i mean by "liberal" or

"progressive." how does this back-and-forth work? it is a challenge every day, but this organization -- this coalition absolutely false on the left side of the spectrum. host: democratic caller. caller: i would like to make a comment to the caller from kentucky who talked about the unfair advantage of the pac money and comparing it to the union dues money. number one, it is against the law to take union dues money and use it for political action campaigns. that is a separate campaign that people can voluntarily join once they are in the union. the union dues do not offer anything political that is against the law. people in this country think, oh, these people are paying union dues to take on the republicans, or people in the party, but that is not true.

guest: good point as well. union members have to say if they want money spent on political purposes, if the dos they pate go to those representing them or negotiating contracts. the nuance of union money versus conservative money gets lost, and labor organizations are constantly in education mode trying to remind people of the nuances of how these organizations work trade unions to disclose the vast majority of the money they spend, when it comes to lobbying and politics. that information is with the labor department at washington. the disclosure critique of the unions does not hold up quite as well as it might with a secretive nonprofit organization. you mentioned that george soros -- some of the money he gives he

did not disclose to the public as well. these distinctions have to be made. host: oklahoma, republican caller. caller: thanks for c-span2 but i also wanted to thank the guest you have paid if i am not mistaken, and his organization posted a 47% video? guest: that's right. caller: i thought that was definitely something the american public had a right to see, and i want to thank you for that. with regards to this grassroots campaign, i feel like the work it wants to do against gun control is a little bit in the nature of propaganda, because i feel like the entire site isn't being reported. every single one of these shootings, or least 90% of them, the kids who commit these atrocities have been on serious

medications. i believed it deserves to be delved into, because there are 80 million gun owners and america, and less than 1% a death.ng get i think it is borderline criminal to say that the problem is guns when and 90% of these shootings involved anti- depressant drugs. as we know, the medical industry, the pharmaceutical drug companies are far too involved in publipolitics to gor that. host: he mentioned that the groups contributing to the debate on a new gun-control measures, and organizing for america was not part of this meeting he reported about, correct? guest: or any from the obama- connected organization that

mobilizes folks who may have volunteered for the president, worked for his reelection in some large or small way. the organization, from the sound of this, will be putting out messages to members to get them to put pressure on their lawmakers. the caller -- i cannot speak to the veracity of the 90% statistic, but the connection between -- with mental illness has, over and over again, and something that the task force led by joe biden said they would look at as well. it is a very centerpiece of this gun control debate and debate over guns and a general -- guns in general. host: a reminder to our viewers, because darryl says, "what is

this massive liberal plan?" guest: super pacs that can take million dollar donations, nonprofit groups that spent money almost secretly as well, that is one element of it. a voting rights, fighting voting id laws, trying to get more people into the voter rolls while combating laws discriminating against students and seniors and minorities. the third piece is reforming use of the filibuster and in the senate. host: all of those would contribute to more liberal, progressive lawmakers? guest: they what could be progressive agenda, they believe, is stymied by these three fundamental issues. they sat down and thought about, ok, we have our own respective agendas, but what are the fundamental things that are

blocking carjack, unionization, which would make -- card check, unionization, which would make it easier to join unions, reform of disclosing secret money in politics. when they broke it down, at they realize that these three issues are impediments to everything they have been trying to do, and that is why they zero in on them. host: ohio, independent caller bank. caller: glad to be on your show finally . my question is on card check for the unions -- as more states push right to work laws, shouldn't we just have a simple card check? for years they have been warning us about the rich. going back to the movie "a

christmas carol," ebenezer "why don'taid they just go ahead and die?" isn't that pretty much what mitt romney said? guest: right to work laws are spreading across the country did this is another example of that 40-year conservative agenda -- right to work was a part of that. it was implemented in michigan, my whole state, of all places, sort of the cradle of american labor. carjack legislation would have made it easier to joint union -- card check legislation would have made it easier to join unions, but that was filibuster ed. the head of the communication workers of america shakes his

fist at the memory of card check legislation being blocked. that was a huge priority, and to see it be block was a wake-up call for them. host: in texas, philip. caller: number one, i would like to say thank you so much for being on. it has exposed me to be the broad ideas, i feel like that you are going the right direction. i feel like you could almost stick a fork in republicans, because they are done. i truly believe it is obvious now that they are for the rich and wealthy people, and we need more people that are trying to work for the middle class. i am below middle-class, and i make ends meet from month to month. if we were looking at what they were going to do, and take money

away from us and increase our taxes, mine would be about $2,000 a year. that would be a big amount of money taken away from us just to protect the rich and big companies. i appreciate your time. god bless america. guest: it is interesting, i have at an e-mails and messages from folks after this story came out, one from the folks who did not know this organization existed -- this is from democrats and people on the left -- saying "i am glad that these starworts of the movement are getting together and pooling resources and building some kind of united effort," after seeing folks on the conservative side being so organized and so successful for so long. people are saying thank you, how can i get involved? i am not quite sure what to tell

them -- maybe join some of these organizations. but there is a recognition on the left that there needs to be a counterbalance to what we have seen on the right. host: jay in north carolina, republican caller. caller: thank you for taking my call it what is bothering me is the approach that is being taken. it should be in this country that the best ideas win, and it looks to me -- it bothers me that this is tyranny here. that: yeah, i don't think the folks that belong to the democracy initiative, this coalition of progressive groups i am writing about -- i don't think they would disagree with that idea as well, that the best ideas should win. they plea that the ideas they are putting forward, -- they

believes that the ideas and they are putting forward a the best ideas, that a senator should not be able to secretly put a hold on a piece of legislation, as the filibuster currently works, at that a better idea would either force the senator to be on the floor and speaking the entire time to maintain that all, that blocke, or some other sort of curb on the use of it. the besthink that ideas win is anything that these folks would. host: raleigh, north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i belong tonow, but a unit for a long, long time. it was about work, not parties.

it seems to me that from what i'm hearing, if you belong to a union, that means you are a democrat and liberal. host: and you disagree with that? caller: i disagree with that. i don't know where they are, but there were republicans and my .nion gue guest: thanks for your call. i believe there are absolutely republicans in the labor unions today, and for a large swath of american history, they were not considered fixtures of the democratic party. i think as time has progressed, democrats have come to believe that republicans, at least the republican leadership and republican lawmakers, don't push and support the kinds of policies that labor unions believe are good for working people. i think you have seen in the last 30 or 40 years democrats have realized that the

democratic party is the one that is going to speak for what they belief is right for working people, and the republican party has not. that is sort of the labor perspective. guest: voter fraud is a very contentious debate. we saw that play out in the 2012 elections. there is a whole school of thought, a whole movement, saying that in-person voter fraud, people committing voter fraud at the polls, is a huge problem. there is no evidence to back that up. an expert on this at the university of california-irvine wrote an entire book in which he calls the voter fraud fraud, and some of the best research we have seen suggests that while voter id laws may catch isolated

incidents of a voter fraud, not in person, but elsewhere around the country, the aggregate effect is disenfranchising, essentially shutting out voters from the process. host: duties of liberal groups that got together think that the voter id laws -- again, a lot of states already have them. what will there ever be, to overturn those law? guest: i think if they believe that voter id laws will continue to be proposed in states where it may be they were struck down. this is part of the conservative agenda, voter id laws, and whole efforts are committed at the national and state level, and these groups want to be there to challenge them and to challenge them where possible in legislatures and do whatever it they can to stop those efforts.

host: philip >>, independent caller ban -- philip is next, independent caller ban. caller: i would put forth that neither the democrats nor republicans care about the working man, the blue-collar individual who goes to work every day to provide for his family and strive for the american dream. they only care, both democrats and republicans, about power and remaining in power. the democrats seem to court the unions and large organizations like the sierra club, while republicans court large companies for their donations. both sides had made millionaires and each side because state and what our -- have mega- millionairess on each side because they what power to anyone who would align themselves with their

organization, democrats or republicans, is a damn fool. guest: the caller is not wrong about how democrats and republicans by into the post- citizens united system we have. inauguration's allows corporate donations, which he did not in 2009, talking about the first inauguration. and you have an academic who has done great research talking about how the priorities of the folks in congress on the democratic and republican side are not necessarily aligned to the working class and more aligned to the wealthy. members of this coalition, and including labor unions, certainly care about working people and have to answer to working people, but there is a complaint to be made when you are talking about big national parties and how the system works today.